Category Archives: Pharmaceutical Drugs

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

In May of 2015, Tricare began screening all compound medication prescriptions to ensure approval of each ingredient with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This decision came after a finding of a significant increase in compound drug prescriptions reimbursed by Tricare over the last year.

In April 2015, just four months into the fiscal year, it was already determined that total costs for compound drug prescriptions filled for Tricare recipients were likely to come close to $1 billion. If the trend continues, the Defense Health Agency expects it may need to reallocate funds at the end of this year to cover the prescription drug benefit, which is currently set at $8.25 billion.

For more on this new screening process and its effect on compound medication prescriptions, click here.

With prescription drug costs at an all-time high, the government is cracking down on health care fraud. This includes the implementation of data mining for fraud detection and prevention.

It was during one of these routine mining expeditions of reimbursement data that the United States Attorney’s Office identified MediMix, a compounding pharmacy in Jacksonville, Florida, as the top-biller of compounding pain prescriptions. More importantly, upon further investigation, it was found that Ankit Desai, M.D. was the top referring physician for MediMix.

The significance in the correlation between the two is that, according to reports, Dr. Desai happens to be married to one of the top executives (Senior Vice President) of Medimix.

Health care providers are generally prohibited from referring patients to another medical-related business in which they hold a financial interest of some kind, if there are payments made with federal funds.

The prohibition on certain physician referrals is established under Section 1395nn, 42 United States Code (otherwise known as the Stark Law). The Stark Law states in pertinent part:

“…if a physician (or an immediate family member of such physician) has a financial relationship with an entity specified in paragraph (2), then–

(A) the physician may not make a referral to the entity for the furnishing of designated health services for which payment otherwise may be made under this subchapter, and

(B) the entity may not present or cause to be presented a claim under this subchapter or bill to any individual, third party payor, or other entity for designated health services furnished pursuant to a referral prohibited under subparagraph (A).” Section 1395nn (a)(1)(A)(B), 42 United States Code.

Paragraph (2) of Section 1395nn (a), 42 United States Code, defines “a financial relationship of a physician (or an immediate family member of such physician) with an entity specified in this paragraph” as:

(A) except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this section, an ownership or investment interest in the entity, or

(B) except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, a compensation arrangement (as defined in subsection (h)(1) of this section) between the physician (or an immediate family member of such physician) and the entity.

An ownership or investment interest described in subparagraph (A) may be through equity, debt, or other means and includes an interest in an entity that holds an ownership or investment interest in any entity providing the designated health service.” Section 1395nn (a)(2)(A)(B), 42 United States Code.

The Stark Law was specifically enacted to place limitations on physician referrals so as to avoid:

In support of its position, the United States Attorney’s Office relied on Section 199.9, 32 Code of Federal Regulations, which provides “administrative remedies for fraud, abuse, and conflict of interest.” More specifically, Section 199.9(c)(12) defines fraud as:

“Arrangements by providers with employees, independent contractors, suppliers, or others which appear to be designed primarily to overcharge the [Tricare program] through various means (such as commissions, fee-splitting, and kickbacks) used to divert or conceal improper or unnecessary costs or profits.”

Furthermore, due to the application of this more open-ended regulation, whistleblowers that may come forward as a result of the allegations made in this False Claims Act (FCA) case, may be granted more latitude in making arguments. Alternatively, under the Stark Law, the same arguments might have been moot as a result of its explicit exceptions not found in Tricare regulations.

We’ll Call it the Honeymoon Fund.

MediMix reached a settlement agreement with the government which has avoided a determination of liability. However, the Jacksonville-based compounding pharmacy did not get off without a significant penalty. The settlement will cost MediMix an impressive $3,775,458.

Click here to read more about the government cracking down on what they determine to be “a significant threat to the [Department of Defense] DoD healthcare system.”

Avoiding the”Dog House.”

The FCA has been highly effective in exposing fraudulent practices of pharmaceutical companies. Whistleblower cases brought under the FCA have assisted the government in recovering more than $19 billion in stolen funds due to varying pricing, billing and marketing schemes.

Here are the most common pharmaceutical practices that may land you in the “dog house” for a FCA violation:

(1) Off-label marketing of drugs;

(2) Illegal kickbacks;

(3) Inflating the price of pharmaceuticals;

(4) Best price fraud; and

(5) Pharmaceutical benefits manager fraud.

Click here to read more information about these common pharmaceutical schemes and how to identify and consequently avoid them.

If you find yourself in a tricky situation with possible allegations of a FCA violation, it’s best to contact an experienced health attorney immediately to properly evaluate your case and inform you of your rights.

Comments?
Are you currently engaged in a questionable financial relationship? Do you agree with the law on prohibiting certain referrals in which there is a financial interest? Why or why not?

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Pharmacies and Pharmacists.

The Health Law Firm represents pharmacists and pharmacies in DEA, DOH and FDA investigations, qui tam and whistleblower cases, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, administrative hearings, inspections and audits. The firm’s attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

On June 14, 2013, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents, along with local police and sheriffs’ deputies raided a Longwood, Florida, pain management clinic. In addition to criminal charges, the physicians and employees associated with this clinic face another lesser known threat, the civil forfeiture of their money and property. During the raid agents took everything from the clinic that could help them build a criminal prosecution. This included paper records, computer equipment and prescription drugs. In addition to the Longwood pain management clinic, DEA agents also searched homes in Brevard County, Florida, where associates of the Longwood clinic allegedly live. To read more on the raid, click here.

This is just one example. Recently we’ve noticed that it is becoming more common for government prosecutors and agencies, including the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU), the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and local sheriff and police departments to use the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act against health professionals and health facilities in health-related cases.

The Difference Between Criminal and Civil Forfeiture Laws.

There are two types of forfeiture laws, criminal and civil. Criminal forfeiture laws allow the seizure of property only after a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, civil forfeiture laws allow the government to gain possession of a person’s property immediately and without any determination of guilt.

Property is Subject to Forfeiture if Criminally Derived.

Under the idea that the property is itself guilty by association, federal and local law enforcement authorities may take your property without convicting or arresting you, putting the burden on you to prove that property was not associated with a criminal enterprise. The property seized does not have to belong to the alleged bad actor or criminal. This can occur because civil forfeiture is a civil lawsuit against property. The legal action has less to do with a person’s guilt and more to do with the property’s use as an instrumentality in a crime. If the property has been used in association with or to aid criminal acts, the property is subject to civil forfeiture proceedings.

This is what the physicians and employees of the Longwood clinic are now facing. While these individuals’ homes and property may not be directly associated with criminal activity, the government is still arguing that the property is subject to forfeiture because the money used to buy it was “criminally derived.”

Fighting Civil Forfeiture.

We believe the main purpose in the government’s use of civil forfeitures is to shut down the alleged criminal and make it so he or she cannot hire an attorney to defend the person(s) accused. This does, unfortunately, often work. However, a prompt, aggressive defense to these actions may recover the property or funds seized and, more importantly, a good defense can be used to help resolve any pending criminal charges.

The key to success in civil forfeiture actions is to immediately consult with an experienced attorney after the property has been seized. Your best defense is to act as quickly as possible. To read more what defenses can be used to fight civil forfeiture, click here for a previous blog.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Civil Forfeiture Cases.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents physicians, nurses, pharmacists, dentists, mental health counselors and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, civil forfeitures, inspections and audits involving the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Health (DOH) and other law enforcement agencies. Its attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

What do you think of the Civil Forfeiture Act being used against health care professionals and health facilities? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

About the Author: Christopher E. Brown, J.D., is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

By Lance O. Leider, J.D., The Health Law Firm and George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

A recent investigation by ProPublica found that certain doctors who prescribed certain drug brands the most, also have financial ties to the companies that manufacture those prescription drugs. Using Medicare payment data, ProPublica and National Public Radio (NPR) researched physicians who prescribed the most heavily promoted drugs of 2010 and 2011. It was discovered that many of the doctors allegedly had financial relationships with prescription drug manufacturers. ProPublica states that they initiated this investigation out of fear that pharmaceutical payments are influencing doctors to prescribe an expensive, brand name drug over a cheaper, generic version.

According to ProPublica, the company is an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.

By The Numbers.

The ProPublica analysis looked at a number of drug companies. Until now, doctors’ prescribing practices have not been made public. Disclosure of these records is now mandated in the Affordable Care Act.

According to NPR, at least 17 of the 20 doctors who prescribed the blood pressure medicine Bystolic the most often collected money from the maker, Forest Laboratories. Forest paid those doctors speaking fees for promoting Bystolic at seminars to other doctors. These fees allegedly ranged from $1,250 to $85,750. Additionally, seven of the speakers allegedly received at least $1,000 for meals. Nine of the top 10 prescribers of Exelon, an Alzheimer’s drug, collected speakers’ fees from Novartis. Eight of the top 10 Nucynta prescribers were paid by the painkiller’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, for similar services, according to NPR.

Federal whistleblower lawsuits against several pharmaceutical companies have alleged that these speaking payments are little more than “thinly veiled kickbacks,” which are illegal. According to NPR, three years ago Forest paid $313 million to the federal government to settle allegations about its marketing of drugs. The lawsuit alleged the company made cash payments disguised as consulting fees to doctors.

Novartis is currently fielding two different lawsuits filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The first lawsuit was filed on April 23, 2013, alleging the company gave illegal kickbacks to pharmacists. A second lawsuit was filed on April 26, 2013, alleging illegal kickbacks were paid by Novartis to health care providers. According to the DOJ, the government’s complaint seeks damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act, and under the common law for paying kickbacks to doctors to induce them to prescribe Novartis products that were reimbursed by federal health care programs. Click here to read a previous blog on these lawsuits.

Individual providers are also liable for accepting prohibited remunerations from drug companies. The use of these databases for mining prescribing/promoting practices is likely to lead to increased scrutiny on physicians.

What the Law Says About Using Kickbacks.

For years drug companies have paid doctors to speak about new drugs at educational conferences with other health care professionals. The practice is legal, but considered questionable.

Under the Anti-Kickback Statute, it’s a felony for health care professionals to accept bribes in exchange for recommending a drug or service covered by Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE or the Department of Veterans Affairs health care program.

Relationship Between Physicians and Pharmaceutical Companies Allegedly Does Not Influence Prescribing Practices.

In a survey, doctors said they are not influenced by relationships with pharmaceutical companies, according to a FiercePharma article. The doctors with a relationship to Forest state a number of reasons for prescribing Bystolic versus other blood pressure dugs. None of the reasons for prescribing Bystolic related to the money they received from Forest.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

Is it a coincidence that top prescribers also collect from drug makers? As a health care professional, would you be influenced to prescribe one drug if you were getting paid by the drug maker? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

About the Authors: Lance O. Leider is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

The Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) investigation into a Longwood, Florida, pain management clinic continues. More details are being revealed about the case. DEA agents along with local police and sheriffs’ deputies raided the pain management clinic on June 14, 2013. Agents believe the evidence they have gathered suggests the clinic was operating as a “pill mill,” according to the Orlando Sentinel. Officials allegedly seized evidence at the clinic associated with at least ten (10) doctors and other clinic employees. No one has been arrested yet, but documents filed in federal court in Orlando suggest charges could be coming.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, the DEA began surveying the alleged pill mill in January 2011, while investigating a doctor shopper. From July 2011 through May 2013, agents monitored the clinic. During the investigation, agents observed long lines outside the clinic, out-of-state license plates and groups of “patients” arriving at the clinic together. All of this behavior, according to authorities, is associated with pain clinics.

More concrete evidence against the pain management clinic, according to police officials, includes:

– DEA agents observing drug deals made by patients coming from the clinic, in the vicinity of the clinic;

– Used needles were found in nearby parking lots; and

– Two of the clinic’s patients allegedly died from overdoses during the investigation.

Pain Management Clinic Physicians Made Millions.

It’s reported that the pain management clinic hired ten (10) doctors to write illegal prescriptions and employed others to falsify documents. For their willingness to participate in the illegal activity, the physicians allegedly made millions of dollars.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, the bank accounts of the clinic managers were analyzed as part of the investigation. From 2011 to 2013, more than $5.5 million in cash was deposited into the bank accounts of the clinic managers and physicians.

Keep in mind, at this point, these are just allegations made against the clinic and its employees and nothing has been proven by the state or federal government.

Be Mindful of the Prescription Drug Monitoring Database.

DEA agents used Florida’s prescription drug monitoring database to find out what types of pills and how many pills physicians at the Longwood pain clinic were prescribing. The prescription database was not intended to be used for criminal prosecution or law enforcement purposes. Yet it is routinely being used to prosecute physicians, pharmacists and pharmacies among others.

If You are a Health Care Professional Involved with Pain Management, Keep These Tips Handy.

The raid on the Longwood clinic is just one of the many we’ve recently seen in Florida. DEA agents and local law enforcement officials are not slowing down in their fight against illegal pill mills, and illegal prescribing and dispensing practices. I have represented a number of physicians who have been accused of “overprescribing.” Some of these were criminal investigations by local law enforcement authorities, such as a county sheriff’s office. Some were investigations by the DEA. Some were investigations by the state licensing agency, such as the Florida Department of Health (DOH).

The Health Law Firm represents physicians, pharmacists, pharmacies, physicians, nurses and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, inspections and audits involving the DEA, Department of Health (DOH), and other law enforcement agencies.
If you are aware of an investigation of you or your practice, or if you have been contacted by the DEA or DOH, contact an experienced health law attorney immediately.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

What do you think about all of these raids on pharmacies and pain clinics? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

George F. Indest III, Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 17, 2013, that pay-for-delay agreements between brand name and generic drug manufacturers are subject to anti-trust scrutiny. These pay-for-delay agreements, or reverse payments, are usually a form of settlement between the two manufacturers in patent litigation. The Supreme Court decided that each instance must be considered on a case-by-case basis. This verdict rewrites the rules governing the release of generic drugs. It is likely to increase the number of generic drugs in the marketplace and reduce the price of generic drugs.

Pay-for-delay agreements came as the result of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act gives generic drug manufacturers an incentive to challenge brand name drug patents because the first generic drug manufacturer to received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to launch a generic copy of a brand name drug can receive a 180-day marketing exclusivity period for the product. The FDA cannot approve any other generic applications for the same drug until the first-to-file generic manufacturer has sold its product for 180 days or has given up its exclusivity period. Click here to read the Hatch-Waxman Act.

Brand name manufacturers often challenge generic drug manufacturers who try to sell their product prior to patent expiration. This results in litigation to determine whether the generic manufacturer is violating the brand name manufacturer’s patents.

Instead of going to court over this, brand name manufacturers often choose to pay a settlement to the generic drug manufacturers for agreeing to delay the launch of its competing product.

Why the Supreme Court Overruled Court of Appeals Decision.

The 5-3 vote overruled the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said pharmaceutical companies can’t be sued unless the patent litigation is a sham or a generic drug maker agrees to delay introduction of a generic drug into the market even after the patent has expired.

A Med Page Today article lists the Supreme Court’s five reasons why the appellate court made a mistake in giving blanket immunity to pay-for-delay agreements from the decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer:

– “A reverse payment, where large and unjustified, can bring with it the risk of significant anticompetitive effects.”

– “One who makes such a payment may be unable to explain and to justify it.”

– “Such a firm or individual may well possess market power derived from the patent.”

– “A court, by examining the size of the payment, may well be able to assess its likely anticompetitive effects along with its potential justifications without litigating the validity of the patent.”

– “Parties may well find ways to settle patent disputes without the use of reverse payments.”

According to Bloomberg, the high court’s decision may discourage brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies from reaching settlements. It’s been found that pay-for-delay agreements can delay a generic drug almost 17 months before it can be put on the market. In the meantime, patients must pay higher prices for the brand name version. This also impacts Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) claims pay-for-delay agreements cost consumers $3.5 billion a year in the form of higher drug prices.

The Supreme Court case center around AndroGel, a treatment for low testosterone in men, made by Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The FTC sued Solvay and three generic drug companies. According to Bloomberg, the FTC said that a payment made by Solvay, the holder of a patent on AndroGel, to the generic drug manufacturers represented an unlawful restraint of trade because it was intended to keep cheaper, generic versions of AndroGel off the market until 2020.

FTC Enthusiastic About the Decision.

In a statement, the FTC Chairwoman said the Supreme Court’s decision is a “significant victory for American consumers, American taxpayers and free market.” She also stated, “The court made it clear that pay-for-delay agreements are subject to antitrust scrutiny.”

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Pharmacies and Pharmacists.

The Health Law Firm represents pharmacists and pharmacies in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, inspections and audits. The firm’s attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

What do you think of the Supreme Court’s ruling? Do you agree or disagree? What effect do you think it will have on the pharmaceutical industry? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents along with local police and sheriffs’ deputies raided a Longwood, Florida, pain management clinic on June 14, 2013. According to the Orlando Sentinel, agents searched for evidence at the clinic associated with multiple doctors. DEA agents stated the clinic was operating as a “pill mill” and allegedly diverting legal prescriptions for illegal purposes. No one was arrested during the raid. Longwood is a suburb of Orlando.

Investigation Spreads to South Florida.

According to WESH-TV, during the raid agents took everything from the clinic that could help them build a criminal prosecution. This included paper records, computer equipment and prescription drugs. DEA agents would not say how many people they were investigating, but they did say this raid was the result of a two-year long investigation.

In addition to the Longwood pain clinic, DEA agents said they are also searching locations in Brevard County, Florida, where associates of the Longwood clinic allegedly live.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, two doctors associated with the Longwood clinic were allegedly “blacklisted” in 2011, by CVS Pharmacy. This means that CVS notified those physicians that the pharmacy chain would no longer fill prescriptions they wrote for certain drugs such as oxycodone, due to suspiciously high prescribing rates. To read a previous blog on the CVS blacklist, click here.

The Longwood pain clinic is currently closed. Whether this will be temporary or permanent is unknown at this time.

Different Clinic, Similar Storyline.

This raid on the Longwood clinic is just one of the many we’ve recently seen in Florida. DEA agents and local law enforcement officials are not slowing down in their fight against illegal pill mills, and illegal prescribing and dispensing practices. To read a blog on two Orlando-area pharmacists recently arrested on charges of alleged drug trafficking, click here. Even the biggest pharmacy chains are not immune to investigations. Walgreens just agreed to pay $80 million to settle a DEA investigation into the chain’s dispensing practices of prescription drugs. To read more, click here.

The Health Law Firm represents physicians, pharmacists, pharmacies, physicians, nurses and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, inspections and audits involving the DEA, Department of Health (DOH), and other law enforcement agencies.
If you are aware of an investigation of you or your practice, or if you have been contacted by the DEA or DOH, contact an experienced health law attorney immediately.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

What do you think about all of these raids on pharmacies and pain clinics? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

It looks like Florida’s prescription drug legislation, the statewide prescription drug monitoring database and the prescription drug crackdowns by law enforcement may be working, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). The FDLE states in its semi-annual report, oxycodone-related deaths statewide dropped between January and June of 2012, compared to the same period of time in 2011. A look at the national numbers shows that the number of people abusing prescription drugs is also down.

Florida and National Numbers.

In the first half of 2012, there were 759 oxycodone-related deaths in Florida, according to the Orlando Sentinel. That number is down from 1,058 during the same time period a year before. The Orlando Sentinel states that nationwide 7 million people abused prescription drugs in 2010. By 2011, that number had dropped to 6.1 million. Studies also show prescription drug use among young adults ages 18 to 25 is also on the decline. The Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation Director believes these numbers are down because young people are realizing these drugs are dangerous and can be deadly.

Previously, Florida was known as a state where drug addicts and dealers could easily find a pill mill or go doctor shopping to get prescription drugs. In the past two years, Florida state leaders and law enforcement officials have stepped up regulations and made serious crackdowns on doctors, pharmacists and pharmacies.

In April 2013, a Lake Mary doctor was sentenced to 25 years in prison for trafficking prescription drugs. Click here to read that story. In December 2012, a fake prescription drug ring was busted in Osceola County. To read that story, click here. In June 2012, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Florida law enforcement announced operation “Pill Street Blues” targeting doctors and clinic owners across Florida. Click here to read more.

Health Care Professional Must Stay Ahead of Patients with Chronic Pain.

Even though the number of people abusing prescription drugs is down, state regulatory boards, private certification boards and federal agencies are not going to ease up. Many physicians in practice today are eschewing multi-disciplinary approaches to treating chronic pain in favor of monotherapies with narcotic medications.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

Do you think the new legislation, the state prescription drug monitoring database and the crackdowns by law enforcement are making a difference in the war against prescription drugs? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.